Anup Mamanchand Goel, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 9(2), Pune

ITA 665/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6976 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH GULABANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NO.665/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ANUP MAMANCHAND GOEL, SHOP NO.5, BUILDING NO.Q, SHRUV DARSHAN SOCIETY, RAVET, PUNE-411044. PAN : ALEPG8189M . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-9(2), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DINESH GULABANI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.03.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-13, PUNE DATED 20.01.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. DEVIATING FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILLED IN TIME AND THE APPEAL IS NOW FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 357 DAYS DUE TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FILED THE AFFIDAVIT. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- THAT I DO NOT HAVE CHILD DUE TO WHICH MYSELF AND MY WIFE DECIDED TO UNDERGO IVF PROCEDURE WITH DUE CONSULTATION WITH EXPERT DOCTORS IN DEENANATH MANGESHKAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, PUNE AND AFTER SOME TIME MY WIFE SUCCEEDED IN CONCEIVING AND PREMATURE TWINS WERE DELIVERED BUT UNFORTUNATELY COULD NOT BE LIVE FOR LONG AND BOTH THE BABIES DIED VERY SOON. THAT COMPLETE PROCEDURE WAS DONE BETWEEN 2013 TO 2015 AND FURING THESE YEARS AND THEREAFTER DUE TO DEATH OF BOTH THE BABIES THE LIFE WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED. ITA NO.665/PUN/2018 - 2 - THAT THE CIT(A) ORDER U/S 250 DT. 20.01.2017 UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS SERVED TO APPELLANT ON DT. 18.02.2017 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIS BROTHER AND DUE TO STRESSED MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE FAMILY HE TRIED TO HANDLE IT ON HIS OWN AND NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT THE DISMISSAL OF CIT(A). THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS BECAUSE OF A GENUINE BELIEF OF THE APPLICABILITY THAT OUR TAX CONSULTANT M/S NAHATA & ASSOCIATES HAVE ALREADY FILED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE SAID DELAY IS NOT DUE TO MY WILFUL DEFAULT AND AS PER FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES IN ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ATTRIBUTING DELAY MAY PLEASE CONSTRUE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 4. ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND ALSO A TUTOR ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TEACHING AND CONDUCTING TUITION CLASSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,52,252/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.31,12,200/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.49,24,750/- AS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME, HOWEVER, THERE IS NONE TO REPRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE ME, WITHOUT GOING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE APPELLATE ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE SAME IS EX-PARTE ORDER. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJUDICATED EX-PARTE . ON THESE FACTS, LD. COUNSEL MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE WOULD MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLEADED FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RIGHT OF FILING THE APPEAL IS GRANTED BY ITA NO.665/PUN/2018 - 3 - THE STATUTE TO THE ASSESSEE-TAXPAYERS. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO INVOKE THE SAID RIGHT AND PAID THE APPEAL FEES IN THIS REGARD CONVEYING HIS SERIOUSNESS OF PURSUING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, I REMAND ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE CIT(A) SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 01 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 01 ST MARCH, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE; 4. THE CCIT, PUNE; 5. , , - / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE